After posting a little while ago, it occurred to me to ask: Is your objection actually to the fact that we (Catholics) have overlapping jurisdictions? (I may be pulling that question out of somewhere; but I figure it's better to ask than to "assume".)

I'm not sure that's what Peter J is talking about though, Anastasia. If I remember correctly, to transfer to another church within the RC communion (rather than just showing up, I suppose) is a matter of canonical enrollment, so that you would be counted as a member of X (sui juris) church from there on out, rather than whatever church you were coming from (e.g., Latin Catholic transfers to the Maronite Church, thereby becoming Maronite 'officially', presumably after practicing at a Maronite Church for a while beforehand). It is a weird concept from an Orthodox perspective (the idea that you should have to officially "switch" to be a part of a particular church...to paraphrase what you wrote, if all share the same faith, why the switch?), but hey...one of many, right?

I don't recall writing about objections, only about the practice of canonical transfers of enrollment or whatever you call them. Y'know, a Latin becomes a Maronite, or a Syro-Malabar becomes a Latin or whatever. That seems odd to me because if I as a Coptic Orthodox person were to approach a bishop about becoming Armenian Orthodox, I would be told no. There's no reason for it, since we're the same Church anyway, and there's nothing to stop me from going to an Armenian Church and receiving there. We Orthodox have overlapping jurisdictions, too, though that's not really how it's supposed to be. But we're definitely not supposed to decide at some point "I'm sick of being Coptic; I want to be Tewahedo now" or something. This idea that we could "transfer" from one Church to another is odd. I was baptized Coptic Orthodox and God-willing I'll die Coptic Orthodox, even if that happens while I'm attending an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

There's no reason for it, since we're the same Church anyway, and there's nothing to stop me from going to an Armenian Church and receiving there.

Well, I won't deny that I can see the similarity. Indeed we (Catholics) can go to any Catholic church (whether Latin (whether Roman, Ambrosian, Bragan, etc), Maronite, UGCC, etc). That certainly doesn't require a canonical transfer.

I also see now that I misunderstood your objection (and possibly Anastasia1's). So I'm glad to understand now what you're saying, although I don't agree with it.

Who's we? You got a mouse in your pocket, Peter J? Nobody's beating up on your church just by saying what you doesn't make sense from an outsider's perspective. The same could be said about Orthodoxy from an RC perspective. We are, after all, not the same.

Who's we? You got a mouse in your pocket, Peter J? Nobody's beating up on your church just by saying what you doesn't make sense from an outsider's perspective. The same could be said about Orthodoxy from an RC perspective. We are, after all, not the same.

I didn't object to either you or podkarpatska saying that what we do doesn't make sense. Rather, my point is that your reasons are opposite each other. podkarpatska said:

An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

then you said that it doesn't make sense that a Catholic can get permission to switch churches, period.

I don't really see those as being opposite. It seems like Podkarpatska is saying that to force a Roman Catholic who wants to be a different kind of Catholic to obtain permission from his Latin overseers to do so doesn't make them seem very equal. What I am saying is something different, namely that if you are Catholic and all rites are equal, why do you need to "switch" in the first place to be a part of another church? I could go to live in Armenia for some reason, and I would be under the bishop of wherever it is I reside. It would not make a difference that I'm Coptic Orthodox and not Armenian. (This is how it SHOULD be, anyway, but of course in places like Lebanon, the Copts established a church despite there already being Armenian churches in the area...I don't know if there were transportation issues or what.)

Rather, what I have seen (admittedly on the internet, as I'm not longer interacting with people in Catholic churches in real life) of this phenomenon as concerns transfers from one Catholic Church to another is a lot of disaffected Latins deciding they would rather be Byzantines, and hence changing churches/rites/whatever because of their personal disgust for the Latin rite or their personal love of the Byzantine rite. That's what I meant to address in my post. We don't become members of other churches just because we decide we don't like the one we're in. When I first moved here to NM, we had Ethiopians worshiping with us in the Coptic Church, and apparently before I was here we had Armenians, as well. If you want to be OO here (or already are), you worship in the Coptic church that's already here. Of course, many larger places have many different kinds of churches that people can go to, but from what I've been told this is not preferable (it's understandable, it's reality, but it's not preferable), as it tends to create a situation in which the Ethiopians stick together, and the Copts stick together, and the _____ stick together, and as a result are isolated from each other along ethnic/cultural lines (taken to its extreme, this can become phyletism, wherein people not of X background are not welcome in a particular church).

Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.

If it's all Catholic whats the difference? Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith? Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act? I don't think so.

Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.

If it's all Catholic whats the difference? Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith? Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act? I don't think so.

I think you're misreading Papist's statement. He didn't say that an Eastern Catholic needs a canonical transfer to attend a Latin parish, or vice versa.

It seems like Podkarpatska is saying that to force a Roman Catholic who wants to be a different kind of Catholic to obtain permission from his Latin overseers to do so doesn't make them seem very equal.

You realize, of course, that Papist made a point of explaining that it is "a two-way street"?

And you realize that I was summarizing what I got out of Podkarpatska's post (which I hadn't read before you pointed it out, and may not even be understanding properly), and not making any sort of statement of my own?

And you realize that I was summarizing what I got out of Podkarpatska's post (which I hadn't read before you pointed it out, and may not even be understanding properly), and not making any sort of statement of my own?

It seems like Podkarpatska is saying that to force a Roman Catholic who wants to be a different kind of Catholic to obtain permission from his Latin overseers to do so doesn't make them seem very equal.

You realize, of course, that Papist made a point of explaining that it is "a two-way street"?

If its all Catholic there is no "two way street", its all on the same block.

Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.

If it's all Catholic whats the difference? Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith? Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act? I don't think so.

That is the problem with a communion of Churches with different traditions. The Canonical Enrollment is meant to prevent married Roman Catholic men from showing up en masse at Ukrainian, Melkite, Ruthenian, etc., seminaries seeking to be ordained into the Eastern Rite. Of course that happens still but because it is not automatic there is usually a long process of transfer and belonging to the Eastern Rite before the bishop would even consider accepting your transfer.

Other than ordination, there is really no bar to attending another ritual Church. Just go and attend. I attended the Ukrainian Catholic Church for over 2 years before converting to Orthodoxy. My 1 year old son was admitted to Communion and then when our daughter was born she was baptized, chrismated and communed in the Ukrainian-Byzantine Rite. Canonically we're still Romans. Transfers are really only for men who'd like to be ordained. Other than that, some just seek it as a formality.

I apologize in advance if this question has been asked and answered before (I don't think it has) ...

Does anyone have any theories as to why there are so (relatively) few Oriental Catholics?

(Note: I mean "Oriental Catholics" in the restrictive sense of Catholic churches that have corresponding Oriental Orthodox churches, not the more inclusive sense of Eastern Catholics who aren't Greek/Byzantine, or the even more inclusive sense of all Eastern Catholics.)

How successful were Roman Catholic missions in "EO" regions as opposed to "OO" regions? In India, the first Eastern Catholics were the Syro-Malabar Catholics. Their liturgy has been all over the place, going from Eastern rite to Roman rite translated into Syriac back to Eastern rite with copious Latinisations (pre-Vatican II) to Eastern rite with copious Latinisations (post-Vatican II). The Syro-Malankara Catholics have an entirely different history. But in both cases, their jurisdiction was limited to "traditional territories". Any pastoral ministry outside those very limited boundaries had to be conducted under the Roman aegis, using the Roman rite, etc., even if the people doing the work were Eastern Catholics. And this didn't seem to bother anyone. I know of a Syro-Malabar religious priest, now deceased, who spent almost the entirety of his forty plus years as a priest within the Roman rite. I also know a Syro-Malankara priest who is pastor of a large RC parish near to where I live...not sure how/when/if he manages to serve in his own tradition, or if it's even a big deal to him.

I wonder if a fierce attachment to liturgical rite, autonomy, etc. among those in "EO" lands played a role in this. My limited experience with "Oriental Catholics" is that they're "Catholic" (read: Papist) before anything else. I don't think they'd be bothered too much if the Roman rite was imposed on them either from within or without. Most of the ones I personally know are functionally Roman rite anyway. If the sui iuris Churches were shut down and their members were all forced into the local RC dioceses, I don't think very many would fight over it. The "Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics", on the other hand, seem to identify more with being Eastern rather than "Catholic", no matter how many Latinisations they accepted/adopted in order to distinguish themselves as "Catholic". Perhaps the "Byzantine Rite" needed to be promoted more heavily among the Eastern Catholics in order to keep them within the Roman communion, while the "Oriental Rites" were not in as much danger of defecting.

Totally conjecture, so I could be wrong, but there it is.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.

If it's all Catholic whats the difference? Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith? Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act? I don't think so.

I think you're misreading Papist's statement. He didn't say that an Eastern Catholic needs a canonical transfer to attend a Latin parish, or vice versa.

You don't need a canonical transfer to receive communion at an Eastern parish as a Latin, or vice versa. The different sui iuris churches have somewhat different church disciplines, though, for example regarding fasting, holy days of obligation, marriage and ordination, etc. Your canonical enrollment determines which disciplines are binding on you. There are rules about canonical transfers to prevent cherry picking or transferring for trivial reasons. It's more about maintaining disciplines (both Eastern and Western) than anything else. That is at least how I understand it.